From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f1111f1bf805022b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)
Subject: Re: Unconstrained type Unchecked_Deallocation
Date: 2000/03/08
Message-ID: <2000Mar8.172955.1@eisner>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 594907536
References: <lup5csoc69dj9ko2q7fbdduf8n0i4h09ll@4ax.com>
 <8a0h55$qc5$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38C3D82F.C9F81832@bton.ac.uk>
 <38C566CE.6283C0AD@rational.com> <8a6f5s$5st$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Trace: news.decus.org 952554599 16052 KILGALLEN [216.44.122.34]
Organization: LJK Software
Reply-To: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-03-08T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <8a6f5s$5st$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes:
> In article <38C566CE.6283C0AD@rational.com>,
>   Mark Lundquist <mark@rational.com> wrote:
> 
>> Right, hiding the instantiation of Unchecked_Deallocation is
>> often a good idea.
> 
> This is stated without justification. Please give your reasons
> for this, I don't see it at all.

These days I tend to name my instantiations of Unchecked_Deallocation
Unchecked_<something-or-other>.  The fact that an instantiation exists
is plain, and if I wanted to hide the instantiation it would give it
a scope larger than I want.